N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ALLAN KENNETH M OR GAL, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. EDWARD W ILLIAM S, Se rge ant; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-15490 D.C . No. 4:12-c v-00280-C KJ M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na C indy K. Jorge nson, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d

June 22, 2015 ** B e fore : HAW K INS, GR AB ER , a nd W . FLETC H ER , C irc uit Judge s . Ariz ona sta te prisone r Alla

n Ke nne th M orga l a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging va rious c onstitutiona

l viola tions. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo. Furnac ev . Sullivan , 705 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th C ir. 2013) (sum m a ry judgm e nt); 

# FIL ED JUL 02 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Hamilton v . Brow n , 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th C ir. 2011) (dismi ssa l unde r 28 U.S.C .

§ 1915A). W e m a

y a ffirm on a ny ba sis supporte d by the re c ord. J ohnson v
. Riv e rside He althc areSy

s., LP , 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th C ir. 2008). W e a ffirm in pa rt, re ve rse in pa

rt, a nd re m and. The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d M orga l’ s First Am e ndm e nt re ta lia tion c la im s a ga inst Ja c obs, Sc hroe de r, and W illia m s, to thee xte nt tha

t the y we re ba se d on his tra nsfe r to a nothe r prison, his rem ova l from his job, a n d loss of good tim

e c re d its, be c a

u se M orga l fa ile d to a l le ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t the se a c tions did not a dva

nc e le gitim ate pe nologic a l inte re sts. Se eBrodhe im v . C ry , 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th C ir. 2009) (se tting forth e l e m e nts of a re ta lia tion c la i m in the prison c onte xt); se ealso He bbev . Plile r , 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th C ir. 2010) (a lthough pro se ple a dings a re to be libe ra lly

c onstrue d, a

pla intiff m

ust pre se nt fa c t ua l a lle g ations suffic ie nt to sta te a pla u sible c la im

for re lie f). Dism issa l of M orga l’ s due proc e s s c la im ba se d on his re m ova l from his pa id work a ssignm e nt a

nd the loss of privile ge s wa s prope r be c a use the se a l le gations do not giverise to a

c onstitutiona

lly prote c te d libe rty

or prope rty

inte re st. Se eSandin v . C onne r , 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995) (re quiring “ aty pic a l a nd signific ant ha

rdship on the inm ate in re lation to the ordina ry inc ide nts of prison life ” or a re stra i nt tha

t e xc e e ds the prisone r’ s se nte nc e in “ an une xpe c te d m anne r” to sta te a libe rty
1 4 - 1 5 4 9 0 2inte re s t); W

alk e r v . Gome

z , 370 F.3d 969, 973 (9th C ir. 2004) (the re is no liberty or prope rty inte re st in prison em

ploy m e nt). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d M orga l’ s Eighth Ame ndm e nt de libe rat e indiffe re nc e c la im be c a use M o rga l fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t a ny de fe nda nt wa s de libe rate ly

indiffe re nt to his he a lth. Se e C olw e ll v
. Banniste r , 763 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th C ir. 2014) (a prison offic i a l is de libe rate ly indiffe re nt only

if he or she “ knows of a

nd disre g ards a

n e xc e ssive risk to inmate he a lth” (inte rna l c ita

tions a nd quota tion m arks om itte d)); se e also He bbe , 627 F.3d at 341-42. The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d M orga l’ s a c c e s s-to-c ourts c la im be c a use M orga l fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t he suffe re d a

n a c tua l injury a s the re s ult of de fe nda

nts’ c onduc t . Se eLe w is v . C ase y , 518 U.S. 343, 348-53 (1996) (a c c e s s-to-c ourts c la im re quire s showing tha

t the de fe n da

nt’ s c onduc t c a

use d a c t ua l injury to a non-frivolous le ga l c la im ). The distric t c ourt gra

nte d sum m ary judgm e nt on M orga l’ s e xc e ssive forc e c la im , c onc luding tha

t W illia m s’ s use of forc e wa s an ove rre a c t ion, but not m a lic ious or sa distic . Vie w ing thee vide nc e in the light mo st fa vora b le to M orga l, M orga l ra ise d a

ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t by pre se nting e vide n c e tha

t W illia m s sla m m e d his fa c e a ga i nst thede sk a nd twiste d his a

rm , de spite
1 4 - 1 5 4 9 0 3W illia

m s’ s c onc e ssion tha

t no useof forc e wa s ne c e ssa ry . Se eHudson v
. Mc M i llian , 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992) (“ [T] he c ore judic ia l inquiry ” in re solving a n Eighth Am e ndm e nt e xc e ssive forc e c la im is “ whe the r forc e wa s a

pplie d in a good-fa ith e ffort to m a i nta in or re store disc ipline , or m a l ic iously and sa distic a lly to c a use ha rm [.] ” ). The distric t c ourt a l so e rre d in gra nting sum m ary judgm e nt on M orga l’ s First Am e ndm e nt re ta lia

tory a ssa ult c la im a ga inst W illia

m s be c a use the re is a ge nuine d isputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r W illia m s’ s a c tions a dva

nc e d a le gitim ate pe nologic a l inte re st. Se eBrodhe im , 584 F.3d a t 1269. W e do not c onside r argum e nts a n d a l le gations ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se ePadge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). The pa rtie s sha ll be ar the ir own c osts on a ppe a l. AFFIRM E D in par t, RE V E RSE D in par t, and RE M ANDE D.

1 4 - 1 5 4 9 0 4